Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rukmavva W/O Parappa Gantennavar vs Smt.Yamanavva W/O Beerappa Banaj on 28 September, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
R.S.A.No.5499/2009
C/W R.S.A.No.5498/2009 (DEC.& INJ.)
IN R.S.A.No.5499/2009
BETWEEN:
SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O PARAPPA GANTENNAVAR
AGE:56 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O TERDAL, TQ:JAMKHANDI,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587 315. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR B.HORATTI, ADV)
AND:
1. SMT.YAMANAVVA W/O BEERAPPA BANAJ
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
2. SMT.LAXMIBAI W/O SHIVAPPA AINAPUR
AGE:51 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O 4TH CANNEL, KUDACHI ROAD,
TERDAL, TQ:JAMKHANDI, DIST:BAGALKOT
3. SHANKAR S/O RAMAPPA BILAGI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
3a) SMT.SHOBHA W/O SHANKAR BILAGI
AGE:36 YRS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HARUGERI, TQ:RAIBAG,
DIST:BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI.MRUTHYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV FOR R3a,
NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DT.08.01.2010)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.06.2009
PASSED IN R.A.NO.135/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACT
COURT, JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2008 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.41/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION, DECLARATION AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION.
IN RSA NO.5498/2009
BETWEEN
SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O PARAPPA GANTENNAVAR
AGE:56 YRS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O TERDAL, TQ:JAMAKHANDI
DIST:BAGALKOT. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri.VIJAYAKUMAR B.HORATTI, ADV)
AND
1. SMT.LAXMIBAI W/O SHIVAPPA AINAPUR
AGE:51 YR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O 4TH CANNEL, KUDACHI ROAD,
A/P TERDAL, TQ:JAMAKHANDI
DIST:BAGALKOT
2. SHANKAR S/O RAMAPPA BILAGI
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
2a) SMT.SHOBHA W/O SHANKAR BILAGI
AGE:35 YRS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O BADIGER GALLI, HARUGERI
TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.MRUTHYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV FOR R2a,
R1 - SD)
3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE,1908 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD: 05/6/2009
PASSED IN R.A.NO:134/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK
COURT,JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD:29/08/2008 PASSED IN
O.S.NO:145/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL CIVIL
JUDGE(SR.DN)JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR
1)PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION
2)DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 05.06.2009 passed in R.A.No.134/2008 and R.A.No.135/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Jamkhandi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed in O.S.No.145/1997 c/w O.S.No.41/2001 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Jamkhandi, for considering the following substantial questions of law:
i) Whether the courts below have completely missed the scope and ambit of the suit?
ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below are vitiated for non-consideration of evidence on record?4
iii) Whether the courts below are justified in applying Section 14 (1) instead of Section 14 (2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
iv) Whether the courts below are justified in interpreting the contents of Ex.P.12 'Will"?
v) Whether the courts below are justified in correctly interpreting what was the real intention of the testator of 'Will' while executing the 'Will'?
vi) Whether the courts below are justified in
interpreting the relationship of testator
Satyappa and legatee Yamanavva as
husband and wife in the absence of any
evidence as to the same?
2. The plaintiff/appellant herein had filed a suit
O.S.No.145/1997 for the relief of partition and separate possession and injunction against the defendants claiming half share in the suit property and a suit O.S.No.41/2001 for the relief of declaration declaring that defendant No.1 has got only limited life interest and enjoyment in the land bearing Sy.No.92/4/1 of Teradal till her lifetime and also restraining her from alienating the suit property.
5
3. The brief facts of O.S.No.145/1997 are as under:
One Beerappa Banaj was a propositus having a wife namely Yamanawwa. The said propositus has got two daughters i.e., plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is stated that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the own sisters and married daughters of Beerappa and Yamanavva. It is stated that Yamanawwa died on 22.12.1996 and Beerappa died long back and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are only the legal heir of their deceased parents. Defendant NO.2 was to be the transferee of the entire suit land under two separate sale deeds dated 29.02.1996, the vendors of the above said sale deed are the defendant No.1 and deceased Yamanavva. It is further stated that one Satteppa Danigond was protected tenant of the suit land measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.92/4 of Teradal village. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in his favour on 30.10.1975 and accordingly he become the full owner of said property. The said Satteppa Danigond died on 17.01.1976 and he had no wife and issues. During the lifetime, Satteppa executed the unregistered last Will dated 30.11.1975 in favour of deceased Yamanawwa who was one 6 of the legatee along with other legatees and as per the said Will Yamanawwa became the beneficiary to enjoy the suit land for lifetime measuring 6 acres as a limited owner during her lifetime and after her death the said land was to be succeeded by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 who are daughters of Yamanawwa. Though the said bequeath is conditional one the deceased Yamanawwa was restrained from alienating or transferring the suit land during her lifetime. The deceased Yamanawwa had only life interest over the suit property as per the Will. The testator is intention was very clear that after the death of Yamanawwa, the suit land must be succeeded by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 only.
4. After the death of testator Satteppa Danigond, the name of the plaintiff and defendant No.1's mother Yamanawwa was mutated in the suit land on the strength of the Will under M.E.No.12741 as the limited owner. The revenue records were standing in the name of Yamanawwa and plaintiff and defendant No.1 were also in the lawful 7 possession of the suit property along with Yamanawwa till her death. Such being the fact the plaintiff came to know in the month of August, 1996, that suit land was transferred to the defendant No.2 by deceased Yamanawwa by executing two separate sale deeds on 29.02.1996 in the sub-Registrar's Office, Jamkhandi. Immediately, the plaintiff has filed suit against Yamanawwa for the relief of declaration in O.S.No.64/1996 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), and the said suit is still pending. During the pendency of O.S.No.64/1996, the said Yamanawwa died and suit land devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as per the conditions of the Will dated 30.11.1975. As per the condition of the Will Yamanavva has got only limited interest to enjoy the suit property and after death Yamanawwa the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for the suit land therefore the said Yamanawwa and defendant No.1 had no capacity to sell the suit land in favour of others and the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.2 was void-ab-initio and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff over the suit property and therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file 8 the present suit. It is further stated that the entry standing in the name of defendant No.2 in the Revenue records is illegal. The sale deed executed by Yamanawwa in favour of the defendant No.2 will not create any right and interest over the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 and the plaintiff has challenged the entry of the record of rights before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi, and same is stayed by the Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi. The said defendant No.2 and 1 are interfering in the plaintiff's possession over the suit land and further stated that the plaintiff is having half share in the suit property. The plaintiff demanded her half share in the suit land along with the defendant NO.1 but the defendant No.1 refused the request of the plaintiff therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit and prayed to decree the suit and to allot her half share in the suit land and also declare that the sale deed executed by the defendant NO.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff.
5. After service of the suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and filed their separate 9 written statement. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 died and his LRs are brought on record i.e., defendant No.2 (a). Looking to the written statement of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 admitted the genealogy given by the plaintiff and also admitted the other contents of para 3 of the plaint except the fact that defendant No.1 sold the suit land to defendant No.2. It is further stated that defendant No.1 came to know that deceased Yamanawwa executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 only when she received summons in O.S.No.65/1996 on 29.12.1996. It is further stated that defendant No.1 has no right over the suit property during the lifetime of deceased Yamanawwa and there was no partition in respect of the suit land during the lifetime of Yamanawwa and defendant No.1 has got contingent right over the suit land and further stated that the sale deed executed by Yamanawwa in favour of defendant No.2 is false and without consideration and stated that defendant No.1 is having half share in the suit land as per the Will and prays to dispose of the suit on merits.
10
6. Defendant No.2 denied the contents of the plaint and admitted that Satteppa has executed the Will in favour of Yamanawwa and after the death of Satteppa, Yamanawwa became the owner of the suit property and the intention of Satteppa was to give the suit property in favour of Yamanawwa not as a limited owner on the other hand during her lifetime the said Yamanawwa was the full owner of the suit property and if any estate is left by Yamanawwa then the plaintiff and defendant No.1 can claim but the said Yamanawwa during her lifetime sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.2. Therefore, defendant No.1 is not entitled to claim any right and interest over the suit property. On the other hand, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 married prior to 1976. It is further stated that defendant No.2 purchased the suit land from his vendor Yamanawwa for a valuable consideration under two separate sale deeds the executant of the sale deed documents are admitted the contents of execution of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar who is public officer and further the actual possession of the suit 11 land is handed over to the defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is in actual possession of the suit land. It is further stated that O.S.No.64/1996 filed before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Court Banhatti, is false and vexatious. There is no clause in the Will dated 30.11.1975 that the said Yamanawwa is right over the suit property is to the limited extent. The said Yamanawwa was the beneficiary of the Will and she has become full owner of the suit property. After the death of said Satteppa, Yamanavva became the full owner of the suit property and said Yamanawwa has got saleable interest in the suit property and she has rightly executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 and defendant NO.2 has purchased the same under the sale deeds. It is further stated that during the pendency of O.S.No.64/1996, Yamanawwa died and they denied that suit land was devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and no estate was left by the deceased Yamanawwa on the date of her death. On the other hand, during the lifetime of Yamanawwa only, she has executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 and further 12 stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the entries of the record of rights and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and also denied that the plaintiff is having half share in the suit property and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial court has framed the following issues for consideration:
i) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit lands for the first time devolved upon the deceased Yamanawwa wife of Bhimappa Banaj on the death of the testator of the Will dated 30.11.1975?
ii) Whether the plaintiff proves the genealogy shown by the plaintiff is correct?
iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased Yamanawwa had only life interest in the suit property till her death as contended in the plaint?
iv) Whether plaintiff proves that as per the desire of the testator of the Will suit land devolve upon the 2 daughters as a legatees after death of Yamanawwa Banaj?13
v) Whether defendant No.2 proves that deceased Yamanawwa was the absolute owner of the suit land under Section 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
vi) Whether defendant No.2 proves that there was a legal necessity to the deceased Yamanawwa to alienate the suit land to defendant No.2?
vii) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the earlier suit O.S.No.64/1996 operates as res- judicata of the present suit?
viii) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that sale deeds are false concocted and without consideration?
ix) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that he is the bonafide purchaser for the valuable consideration and the sale deeds dated 29.02.1996 are genuine legal as contended in the written statement?
x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit land as prayed in the plaint?
xi) What order or decree?
14
8. The brief facts of O.S.No.41/2001 are as under:
The plaintiff in O.S.No.145/2003 filed the suit for relief of declaration and injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.92/4/1 measuring 6 acres situated at Teradal. It is submitted that defendant No.2 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is the sister of the plaintiff and defendant NO.3 is the purchaser. It is further stated that suit land measuring 6 acres and that one Satteppa was tenant of the said land. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to Satteppa in respect of suit land and Satteppa was the owner of totally 17 acres and he had no wife or issues. During the lifetime, said Satteppa executed the registered Will on 30.11.1975 in favour of defendant No.1 and others wherein 6 acres land was bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1 as limited owner and stated that defendant No.1 has to enjoy the bequeathed property till her life time and after her death the property shall go to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and the said bequeath is strictly conditional one and defendant No.1 has no saleable interest over the suit property. It is further stated that after the death of Satteppa, defendant 15 No.1 became the owner of the suit land and during her lifetime she has executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant No.3. It is further stated that defendant No.1 has no right and interest to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.3 and the plaintiff received the notice from the Deputy Tahsildar, Teradal calling her to submit the objections. The plaintiff submitted her objection in RTS Case NO.07/1996-1997 dated 01.07.1996 and the matter was pending before the Court. The defendant No.3 was hurrying to mutate the suit property in his name and therefore plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit and prayed to declare that defendant NO.1 has got limited life interest, enjoyment over suit land and sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiff and further prayed to restrain the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from effecting the mutation of the suit land in their name.
9. Upon notice, defendants 2 and 3 appeared and filed written statement. During the pendency of the case, defendant No.1 died and her name was deleted, as her legal 16 representatives were already on record. Defendant No.1 filed written statement stating that after the death of defendant No.1, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 became the exclusive owners of the suit property and they both have half share each in the suit property and further stated that defendant No.3 has no right to acquire any right or title over the suit property and prayed to decree the suit. Defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and has reiterated the facts stated in the written statement filed in O.S.No.145/1997. In addition he has stated that in view of the will executed by Satteppa in favour of defendant No.1, the said defendant No.1 became full owner of the suit property and defendant No.1 was having saleable interest over the suit property and has rightly executed the sale deed in his favour and the plaintiff has no right and interest over the suit property and denied the other contents of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10. On the basis of the pleadings available on record, the trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased defendant No.1 had got only limited life interest over the suit land?
17
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased defendant No.1 had dis-entitle form alienating the suit land?
3. Whether the suit is not properly valued?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 29/02/1996 is void and not binding on the right of the plaintiff?
5. Whether the suit is hit by the principle of res-
judicata?
6. Whether the suit is hit by principle of estoppel?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
8. What order or decree?
11. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and also examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and Exs.P-1 to P-26 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant examined 3 witnesses as DWs.1 to 3 and Exs.D-1 to D-16 were marked.
18
12. The Trial Court after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material on file, in O.S.No.145/1997 answered issue Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 in the affirmative and issue Nos.3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 in the negative and issue No.11 as per the final order.
13. In O.S.No.41/2001, issue No.6 is answered in the affirmative and issue Nos.1 to 5 and 7 in the negative and issue No.8 as per the final order and accordingly dismissed both the suits filed by the appellant/plaintiff taking into consideration the admission by the appellant in her cross- examination that her mother was suffering from cancer and she is staying in the farm house of Satteppa and further has specifically referred to Exs.D-3 and D-4 wherein the appellant as a special power of attorney of her daughter in O.S.No.136/1984 admits that there was an agreement in respect of sale of the suit land in between the plaintiff's daughter Kasturi and defendant No.1, which fact makes clear that the appellant and respondent-Laxmi Bai admitted that the deceased Yamanawwa was having absolute interest over 19 the suit schedule property and the sale deed executed in favour of deceased Shankar is just and proper and recorded a finding of fact to that effect by assigning valid reasons.
14. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees dated 29th August 2008 passed in O.S.Nos.145/1997 and 41/2001, the appellant herein and others filed Regular Appeals Nos.134/2008 and 135/2008 on the file of the Fast Track at Jamkhandi. The said matter had come up before the lower Appellate Court and on 05/06/2009, the lower Appellate Court, after considering the material available on record, after going through the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, framed the following points for consideration:
Whether the plaintiff proves that she was prevented from sufficient cause to file these appeals within the period of limitation?
Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased Yamanavva had only limited interest over the suit property under the will left by deceased Satyappa Danigond?20
Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 prove that the defendant No.2 by playing fraud has got executed Exs.D-3 and D-4 registered Sale Deeds dated 29/02/1996?
Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the plaintiff estopped from contending the late Yamanavva had no salable interest?
Whether the impugned judgment and decrees under challenge are erroneous to interfere by this Court? and answered point Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative and point Nos.2, 3 and 5 in the negative and point No.6 as per the final order and accordingly dismissed both the appeals with costs by confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos. 145/97 & 41/2001 as referred to above. The plaintiff was estopped from contending that late Yamanavva had no saleable interest saleable interest over the suit property. Ex.D-5 is the Certified copy of the judgment dated 15/04/1998 passed in O.S.No.136/1984 by the learned Munsiff, Banahatti dismissing the suit filed by kasturi daughter of plaintiff for permanent injunction against 21 the deceased Yamanavva, and defendant no.1 and her husband. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.136/1984 as general power of attorney holder of her daughter Kasturi. She has categorically admitted that deceased Yamanavva had executed an agreement of sale in favour of her daughter Kasturi which establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Yamanavva had absolute right in respect of the suit schedule property. The only right accrues to the appellant and Laxmi Bai get right over the property after death of deceased Yamanavva and not during the life time of Yamanawwa and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the court below.
15. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal seeking redressal of her grievance as stated above.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Vijay Kumar at the out set submitted that, both the Courts below have committed an error much less material irregularity in 22 proceeding to pass an order without due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials on file. To substantiate his contention he points out to the recital in the will which makes clear that right and possession over the suit property was given only during the life time of Yamanavva. Thereafter the said property will come to equal share of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 i.e., her sister Laxmi Bai and that has not been properly interpreted and contrary to the said recital, the Courts below have recorded a finding that during the life time of Yamanavva she had saleable right. The same cannot be sustained and further both the courts below have committed an error in holding that right of Yamanavva falls under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into, nor appreciated but on the contrary they have recorded a concurrent finding without going into the root cause of the dispute between the parties and submits that the judgments and decrees are liable to be dismissed.
23
17. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the purchaser represented by the legal representatives at the out set submitted that the Courts below, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials on file and taking into consideration the admission made by appellant herself in her examination-in-chief and cross examination that though daughter Kasturi has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property from her grant mother Smt. Yamanavva and she in turn has executed an agreement of sale and field a suit for specific performance wherein she has contended that her mother/appellant has agreed to sell the property in favour of her daughter-Kasturi, he fairly submitted that the appellant represented by GPA in the said suit and the said suit has been dismissed wherein she admitted that deceased Yamanavva had got absolute right over the property and further admitted that her mother was suffering from cancer and she was staying in the farm house of Satteppa who is none other than the person who executed the sale deed in favour of late Yamanavva out of affection and Yamanavva belongs to Kuruba community whereas 24 Satteppa belongs to Jain community and they were living together happily. Satteppa is issueless and the deceased was staying in the farm house of Satteppa which fact has been admitted by the appellant. Therefore, the counsel submits that there is no substantial question of law for consideration and the concurrent finding of fact by the courts below does not call for interference by this Court and prayed that the appeals may be dismissed as devoid of merits.
18. After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and also the grounds urged by the counsel for the appellant, the only point that arises for consideration is Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below call for interference?
19. The undisputed facts of the case in hand are that the suit land in question measures 10 acres. The land has been registered. Occupancy rights has been granted in favour of 25 late Satteppa and it is further admitted fact that deceased Yamanavva was staying with Satteppa in the farm house. Yamanavva belonged to Kuruba community and Satteppa belonged to Jain Community. Further it is an admitted fact that Yamanavva had two daughters, one the appellant and another defendant No.1, Laxmi Bai. During the life time of deceased Satteppa, he executed a resigered Will in favour of the deceased Yamanavva and further the deceased Yamanavva during her life time executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of deceased Shankar represented by legal representatives. It is significant to note that deceased Yamanavva was suffering from cancer and her daughter Laxmi Bai and her husband had taken Yamanavva to the hospital and in spite of giving medications she could not survive. In order to meet out the medical expenses, they have sold the suit schedule property in favour of the deceased Shankar represented by LRs and this fact has been rightly observed and appreciated by both the Courts below. It is the case of the appellant the she had filed O.S.No.136/1984 for specific performance on behalf of her 26 daughter Kasturi, stating that the deceased Yamanavva mother of the appellant had agreed to sell the property and executed an agreement and said suit has been dismissed wherein it is categorically stated that this property belongs to her mother and she is the absolute owner of the property. The deceased Shankar is the bonafide purchaser of the land in question and the said reasoning is well founded and I do not find any substantial question of law as such involved in this appeal Further, during the course of submission learned counsel appearing for the respondent purchaser-deceased Shankar represented by legal representatives that the suit schedule property purchased by Shankar has already been sold in favour of grand son of Laxm Bai who is none other than the appellant's sister's grand son. It is not in dispute that the land in question has been purchased by the grandson with in the family. Therefore the Court below is justified in recording the finding of fact. 27
20. In view of the facts and circumstances as referred to above, both the appeals stand dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placing reliance on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, he contends that as per the recitals in the will, the only Section applicable to the case is Section 14(1) of the Act. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any error as such committed by the Courts below and therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
SD/-
JUDGE Jm/- & kmv